Comparing Beccaria and Van Den Haag's criminal justice theories

Criminal Justice

History of Criminalities

The need to amend criminal procedures and justice has developed in Europe since 20th century. Several philosophers have come up with theories trying to explain how justice can be achieved in a much simpler way other than using the common law as a justice reference. The philosophers aim at minimizing crimes such as monarchy and feudalism. As much effort has been put, theories of various philosophers differ, such as Beccaria and Van Den Haag, with few similarities.

Similarities and differences between Beccaria and Van Den Haag's theories

Both philosophers acknowledge that every crime pays, with a more painful charge on a more severe crime. Both agreed that the ultimate price of crime is punishment, and no crime should go unpunished, with aim of reducing crime rates. Equality on crimes committed is a key concern to both parties, and that an individual is punished for a crime committed and not punished based on discrimination factors.

However, the two philosophers have great differences. Beccaria does not support capital punishment in case of a sever crimes made. He terms capital punishment as human brutality, and instead, he advocates for a rational punishment that aims at improving individual's status of crime rather than the "brutality" (Roth, 2010). He believed that individuals who commit crimes could undergo reform and correct the crime he or she once committed. Beccaria emphasized more on the use of extraditions, with no extra ordinary renditions, on administering justice. Beccaria believed that individual incitement of fear will keep anyone away from committing crime, with a severe crime facing more charges, which induced more fear to an individual who would wish to commit crime purposely. On the other hand, Van Der Haag advocated for capital punishment. He believed the no crime would go unpunished, with a more severe crime being subjected to capital punishment. Van believed that the only way to stop crime is by doing away with criminals totally, and that rehabilitation was of no help to offenders since it will have no impact on the reduction of crime rates.

Beccaria's theory has proven more appealing, since it offers a basis of justice for both minor and major crimes committed. Beccaria's theory does not support death as the ultimate of law offender, and gives second chances to individuals who learn from their mistakes. It incites fear depending on crime committed, gives severe punishment to a severe crime, and in turn, ends up being fairer as opposed to Van Der Haag's theory.

Criminal policy proposal

Criminal justice, over the years, has faced many challenges in administering proper justice. Drug and substance abuse and mental illness are examples of disorders that need to be corrected to minimize crime rates. Criminals who prove to be mentally ill or under the influence of drug or substance should be treated different from criminals who are upright and normal. To solve this problem, different administrative model to punish such criminals should be set up. Any individual under the influence of drug has mental impairment, and can proof to be difficult pass sentence on such a person. Research has shown that there is relationship between violent offences and personality disorders, which several number of personality traits, are associated with offences. Impaired and unimpaired mentally ill offenders should also fall under the category of psychiatric offenders, although research shows that four-fifths of impaired abusers are more violent than unimpaired abusers (Landsberg, 2002).

Criminals associated with psychiatric disorder are associated with excess aggressiveness and irresponsible conduct. Such criminals are referred as (psychiatric offenders) and their cases are given special treatment. To identify, such individuals are associated with three major features including; irresponsible behavior, arrogant and manipulative, and affective deficits. Drug ill courts and Mental Ill Act is an example of how psychiatric offenders should be treated whenever they offend (Davies and Beech, 2012).

Justice to psychiatric offenders should be acted on differently, which will aid in the pretrial process. The offenders should be investigated on what might be the proximate cause of the crime and the situation surrounding such offenders. Offender's background should also be investigated, with a special group of social workers and probation officers who should conduct the activity in prosecutor offices and courthouses. Special courts to psychiatric offenders should sentence the offenders depending on the crime, nature of the crime and the extent of the crime. The special courts should associate the offenders with counseling, social services, treatment and social incentives that will enable them comply with the situation as ordered by the court.

Conclusion

Crime has its pay, whether committed willing fully or not. Beccaria's theory of punishing crime is less brutal and calls for humanity actions. Equality, fairness, integrity and transparency should occasion every trial with no discrimination whatsoever. Every individual who has committed has the right to be heard, with rightful charges pressed on the crime committed and not on the individual. Psychiatric offenders, impaired and unimpaired, should be treated specially in a court of law with the repercussions fair and aimed at minimizing such offenders from committing crimes.